Michael CASHMAN (PES, West Midlands)
Report on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents
Part 1: Draft legislative Resolution
Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs
Part 2: Explanatory Statement
Doc :
Procedure : Codecision procedure (1st reading)
Debate : 02.05.2001

Opening the debate on public access to EU documents, Michael
CASHMAN (PES, West Midlands) stated that he was happy
to ask the House to endorse the compromise that had been reached
between Parliament, Council and Commission. He believed that
the essential elements of Parliament's position had been maintained.
A key priority had been to reach agreement in line with the Amsterdam
Treaty deadline. Mr Cashman argued that the accord improved and
consolidated the status quo. He believed that the text would
be "self-evolving" and that access to documents would
continue to improve. He welcomed the fact that citizens would
not have to rely on the goodwill of the institutions, which they
could now hold to account. He accepted the need to protect EU
security but underlined that exceptions would be discretionary
and not mandatory. There would be a presumption in favour of
access. Mr Cashman welcomed in particular the requirement on
the institutions to provide a register of documents and to publish
an annual report on access.

Following the debate he rejected allegations from some speakers
that smaller political groups had been excluded from the negotiation
process. All matters had been discussed within the Committee
of Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, he underlined.

Mr Cashman's line was echoed by Hanja MAIJ-WEGGEN (EPP-ED,
NL) for the Constitutional Affairs Committee who stressed that
transparency was the best way to combat cronyism. In particular,
she welcomed the fact that there were very few limitations on
disclosure; the fact that EU agencies were also required to provide
information; and that the "loophole" that had led to
the "Solana decision" had been plugged. In conclusion,
Mrs Maij-Weggen argued that the compromise was not perfect but
that it was good to get something now which could be reviewed
later. At the end of the debate she stressed that the agreement
did not represent a step backwards.

A different note was struck by Heidi Anneli HAUTALA (Greens/EFA,
FIN) who cautioned that Parliament should be very careful before
it endorsed this compromise Holding up a Russian matryoshka doll
she warned of shadow regulations within regulations that would
prevent access to documents. Indeed, she argued, the Solana declaration
would be shored up. Mrs Hautala believed that Parliament should
have got more out of the agreement and ensured comprehensive
access to documents.

There was a welcome however, for the agreement from Britta
LEJON for Council who argued that it was a "decisive
step forward". At present, she said, many citizens felt
that the EU was too bureaucratic. She was glad that there were
now general rules on access to documents that would prevent abuse
of power. She noted that her country was in the vanguard over
the question of document access. In particular she welcomed the
fact that any application for a document would have to be dealt
with within a period of 15 working days. In conclusion she stressed
that the compromise enhanced the democratic legitimacy of the
EU.

For the Commission, Michel BARNIER welcomed the agreement
and what he called a "clear and balanced text". Considerable
progress had been made during the negotiations with the result
that the compromise edged towards the provisions applied in the
most advanced state as far as transparency was concerned. Nevertheless,
he recognised it would not satisfy everyone but on balance felt
it was the best possible compromise and was able to say that
the Commission could accept all amendments. It would, of course,
have far reaching implications for the Commission in the sense
that it was the institution that produced most documents, but
the aim would be to provide a true service to citizens and other
institutions. The Commission, he added, was determined to see
that the agreement was applied in a diligent and effective way.
Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD (EPP- ED, S) too said the
new agreement moved towards the Swedish principle on transparency,
although these were exceptions on security, confidentiality and
personal data grounds. Each decision had to be considered on
a case-by-case basis and a request could only be refused it there
was proof that it could damage an institution and she urged MEPs
to back it. In addition, a register would be kept on the Internet.
Supporting the agreement on behalf of the PES, Margrietus van
den BERG (NL) pointed out that it would not apply to confidential
documents emanating from a third party i.e. a Member State or
NATO. For the Liberals, Jan-Kees WIEBENGA (NL) was too
able to endorse the agreement but he too recognised that there
were exceptions. Nevertheless, it should be seen as the beginning
not the end of the story. For the Green, however, Kathalijne
Maria BUITENWEG (NL) objected to the agreement. While
she recognised that there could be confidentiality in, for example,
the area of defence she did not think there was clarity with
regard to certain sensitive documents. Pernille FRAHM (EUL/NGL,
DK) was sceptical about the agreement and did not see any real
gains on the present situation but nevertheless looked to changes
at the review stage in 2004. In supporting the maximum amount
of openness, Ole KRARUP (EDD, DK) was concerned about
secrecy clauses which he felt went against democracy.

Graham WATSON (ELDR, South West), the Chair of the
Committee of Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, was another speaker
to welcome the agreement. It represented a change in culture
from secrecy to openness, he argued. Reaching a compromise was
vital, he said, as one should not "make the best the enemy
of the good". He believed now that a searchlight should
be shone into the "darker areas of decision making"
within the EU.

Glyn FORD (PES, South West) considered that the agreement
did not go as far as he would have liked but that it had gone
further than he expected. MEPs had a window of opportunity at
this moment, he emphasised, and it was not guaranteed that it
would remain open for ever. He welcomed in particular the requirement
for an annual report and the assumption of access. The agreement
did not represent complete freedom of information, he noted,
but it did mean freer information. It was not an end in itself,
he concluded, but the end of the beginning on the road to transparency.